Laserfiche WebLink
<br />North Platte Basin Roundtable Meeting 6-27-06 3 <br /> <br />Kent asked the members of the roundtable for input on their ideas on criteria and <br />guidelines to allocate u\1lds made available from SB 06-179. $40 million is a "drop in <br />the bucket" if you consider the cost of water projects. Eric's May 24th memo states, "The <br />Water Supply Reserve Account is intended to add to, not replace or duplicate, existing <br />funding programs. Existing u\1lding mechanisms fill specific funding niches. However, <br />holes still exist in our overall ability to u\1ld water activities." We must consider our <br />most important needs for which other u\1lding sources are either not available or <br />insufficient. Question asked regarding what projects have been u\1lded historically and <br />by which u\1lding sources. Carl Trick commented that the CWCB has funded projects in <br />our basin. <br /> <br />Kent asked the roundtable if they felt that some designated amount should be set aside or <br />reserved for each roundtable. Paula Guenther-Gloss suggests equalizing the playing field <br />with some specific amount allocated to each basin and the remainder divided by criteria <br />and guidelines yet to be set fOlih. Bottom line is the NOlih Platte Roundtable insists that, <br />where u\1ld allocations are considered in setting for the criteria and guidelines, the IBCC <br />and the CWCB working group consider the North Platte Basin of equal importance to all <br />other Colorado Basins. Bob Burr emphasized that, with regard to the CWCB, he believes <br />we are being represented and considered on equal basis with other basins. <br /> <br />Do we support allocating money before needs assessments are done? Seems reasonable <br />that we could allocate a fraction of the money to timely projects of genuine urgency <br />where opportunities would be genuinely foreclosed if we waited till needs assessment <br />was done. This relates to projects that are being actively considered and are in the wings <br />waiting to be funded. <br /> <br />Does the Roundtable think the criteria and guidelines should give preference to on the <br />ground or built projects versus studies? Question as to whether there has ever been an <br />economic assessment as to the value of agriculture in our basin. Ty Wattenberg quoted <br />information from CO Ag statistics that $15.8 million per year. Hal Hagen commented <br />that there is an incredible amount of information out there already on environmental and <br />recreation studies. Is there a need to compare the impacts to basin water by energy <br />development vs. agricultural uses? <br /> <br />With regard to the Water Supply Reserve Account, the Roundtables have two primary <br />roles. 1) For a water activity to be eligible for u\1lding, it must be approved by the basin <br />roundtable where the project would occur. 2) Roundtables are responsible for developing <br />their basin water needs assessments. Dina Bennett emphasized and Eric's memo states <br />that one of the criteria for prioritizing u\1lding allocations should be the needs identified <br />in the basin assessments. <br /> <br />Carl Trick emphasized that when the Front Range comes to argue their case for why they <br />need to buy our water, in order to effectively negotiate our position, we need to be ready <br />to clearly articulate our needs and what we stand to lose. The reality is that there are <br />people who are willing to sacrifice North Park to supply water to the Front Range. <br /> <br />3 <br />